PDA

View Full Version : Brexit vote - USE A PEN!!



Flounder
June 23rd, 2016, 10:27 AM
WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!! Don't use the government-issued pencil to vote in the European Union referendum!

MI5, possibly at the behest of the Bilderberg Group, Gang of Five and Trilateral Commission could well ERASE your vote to rig the result. PEN UP!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/voters-using-their-own-pens-at-the-polls-after-wild-warnings-of/

SIR
June 23rd, 2016, 10:49 AM
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not still out to get you?

ssharma1618
June 23rd, 2016, 11:00 AM
This woke me up like no cup of coffee can, thank you good sir


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Scrawler
June 23rd, 2016, 01:07 PM
It does not matter how you vote, it is who counts the votes that matters - Stalin

duckmcf
June 23rd, 2016, 05:08 PM
There are much easier ways to rig a referendum than erasing votes.....

Swapping out ballet boxes for one, and spooling up the weather machine to flood out areas likely to vote "exit" for another, would be much easier.

All jokes aside, there's no way the political and financial elites will allow an exit to happen. <edit> ...of course I could be wrong,.... again..... :crazy_pilot:

Cheers
Noel

HughC
June 23rd, 2016, 10:48 PM
WE now wait to see what the fallout really amounts to. I suspect this will end up being one great big mistake.

myu
June 24th, 2016, 12:26 PM
I think I understand why this happened.

Essentially, Brussels was trying to behave like the EU governor, setting policies for all countries that wash over any idiosyncrasies of individual nations. And that's not good. Also, one country becomes "economically ill" and the others end up having to pay for it. In the end, for that kind of financial accountability, you'd then expect more governance to oversee the viability of country policies. And then that's central government all over again. Trouble is, all of these countries have their own strengths and weaknesses. At this point, it's kind of fool hearty thinking one could make everyone play along nicely. It doesn't factor in the compensation involved for issues management.

Of course, for the wealthy and educated, staying sure seemed like the sensible thing to do. That's all well and fine when your quality of life is already high. But for those struggling... competing with immigrants on jobs, and other economic challenges, the union is seen as disadvantageous.

SIR
June 24th, 2016, 02:43 PM
You got it Myu, kind of.

I disagree regarding the affluent and educated, my perspective is that the EU had nearly fifty years and proved very little other than some very substantial weaknesses; a good idea but in reality a great lie.
By extension, a lot of those who wanted to remain can be perceived as lazy, workshy, beggars; strong words, I know, but I'm thinking about my own country people rather than immigrants and fair is fair.

The EU should've implemented a system built on the model developed by the United States.

dneal
June 24th, 2016, 07:40 PM
You got it Myu, kind of.

I disagree regarding the affluent and educated, my perspective is that the EU had nearly fifty years and proved very little other than some very substantial weaknesses; a good idea but in reality a great lie.
By extension, a lot of those who wanted to remain can be perceived as lazy, workshy, beggars; strong words, I know, but I'm thinking about my own country people rather than immigrants and fair is fair.

The EU should've implemented a system built on the model developed by the United States.

They did to a great extent, and the results were similar. Member states created a central body with limited powers and responsibilities. The central body slowly (and often subversively) took more and more power for itself. Politicians and bureaucrats do have to keep busy crafting legislation and regulation, after all...

The original intent for the U.S. Federal government was a limited body to manage defense, foreign interaction, interstate commerce, federal courts to settle disputes between the states, coining money, and other miscellaneous items like a postal system and weights and measures. All other powers were specifically reserved to the States, or the people. Now look where we're at - all due to a poor decision of the Supreme Court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn) allowing the federal government to leverage the interstate commerce clause for whatever it wanted. Department of Education? justified by the interstate commerce clause. Department of Housing and Urban Development? same. Agriculture? Energy? Health and Human Services? those too.

The U.S. system doesn't allow for states to leave (we did try that once... ;) ), but it does allow a method for the States to call a constitutional convention. I don't believe that was possible with the EU. If that is correct, and given the circumstances; it's hard for me to argue that Britain didn't choose wisely in retaining it's sovereignty.

HughC
June 28th, 2016, 05:26 AM
Actually you need to go back to why the UK wanted "in" to start with ( and it wasn't easy to get "in") and what it achieved. The UK through end of '50's/ '60's had a structural per capita GDP decline compared to the EU 5. going from well above to 10% below when they joined. Since joining this has remained more or less the same, in effect joining delivered the desired economic gains desired. Opting out has no observable benefits, London became the EU financial hub...now gone...what this ends up costing will be seen in the future. Uk farmers enjoy EU subsidies to the extent of 55% of agricultural income, this has to fully or partially funded by the UK now as a period of (painful) restructure occurs. Anger and misplaced patriotism combined with misinformation has lead to what will be a very difficult time for the UK, I suspect even the Brexit leaders didn't expect to win as they're now rapidly trying to distance themselves from the "porkies" and financial BS they promoted. There is little to indicate the comparative structural decline won't restart now. Of even greater importance will be what damage it does elsewhere.

Regards
Hugh

Scrawler
June 28th, 2016, 05:51 AM
Actually you need to go back to why the UK wanted "in" to start with ( and it wasn't easy to get "in") and what it achieved. The UK through end of '50's/ '60's had a structural per capita GDP decline compared to the EU 5. going from well above to 10% below when they joined. Since joining this has remained more or less the same, in effect joining delivered the desired economic gains desired. Opting out has no observable benefits, London became the EU financial hub...now gone...what this ends up costing will be seen in the future. Uk farmers enjoy EU subsidies to the extent of 55% of agricultural income, this has to fully or partially funded by the UK now as a period of (painful) restructure occurs. Anger and misplaced patriotism combined with misinformation has lead to what will be a very difficult time for the UK, I suspect even the Brexit leaders didn't expect to win as they're now rapidly trying to distance themselves from the "porkies" and financial BS they promoted. There is little to indicate the comparative structural decline won't restart now. Of even greater importance will be what damage it does elsewhere.

Regards
Hugh
Britain joined the "Common Market" which morphed into the EEC, a mutually beneficial trading arrangement which recognized the national sovereignty of member states. I have spoken to contacts in Britain on both sides of the EU argument. Those who voted to leave appear to be quite happy with the economic community idea, but distrustful of the "ever closer union" idea, which they believe is code for future European Empire and a loss of national identity. Those who I have spoken to who support union seem to be motivated by cheap telephones and holidays abroad. Those who are against union have acknowledged that there will be temporary hardships while Britain establishes trade agreements with former Commonwealth partners. What I found surprising is the number of young people, who one would have expected to benefit from easier travel and foreign education, who voted to leave. Among my contacts are a 60 y/o man and his 23 y/o niece. He voted to remain, she voted to leave. His motivation was purely economic self interest, and hers was a distrust of supra-national government. Curiously one of my N. American contacts has started moves to take her company back to Britain after the Brexit vote. I find all of this counter-intuitive when I consider the on-going rhetoric surrounding the subject.

dneal
June 28th, 2016, 01:13 PM
Well written article from Reason magazine.

Brexit a Victory for Xenophobia? Not So Fast. It was perfectly possible for voters in the UK to vote to leave the EU to engage with the world without being pushed around by meddlesome bureaucrats. (http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/28/brexit-a-victory-for-xenophobia-not-so-f)

oldstoat
June 28th, 2016, 03:28 PM
Britain joined the "Common Market" which morphed into the EEC, a mutually beneficial trading arrangement which recognized the national sovereignty of member states. I have spoken to contacts in Britain on both sides of the EU argument. Those who voted to leave appear to be quite happy with the economic community idea, but distrustful of the "ever closer union" idea, which they believe is code for future European Empire and a loss of national identity. Those who I have spoken to who support union seem to be motivated by cheap telephones and holidays abroad. Those who are against union have acknowledged that there will be temporary hardships while Britain establishes trade agreements with former Commonwealth partners. What I found surprising is the number of young people, who one would have expected to benefit from easier travel and foreign education, who voted to leave. Among my contacts are a 60 y/o man and his 23 y/o niece. He voted to remain, she voted to leave. His motivation was purely economic self interest, and hers was a distrust of supra-national government. Curiously one of my N. American contacts has started moves to take her company back to Britain after the Brexit vote. I find all of this counter-intuitive when I consider the on-going rhetoric surrounding the subject.[/QUOTE]

The role of "supra-national government" is grossly overstated. EU directives are agreed by the Council of Ministers and then incorporated into the law of member states. Every state gets to vote on these matters. Sometimes it goes the way you want and the minister comes home boasting of what they achieved. Sometimes it doesn't and they come home whining about the bureaucrats stopping them or imposing something on them. They politicians know the game. Many of their voters don't.

BTW, I'm afraid that unless your North American contact runs a major bank or industrial outfit, her moves to move to the UK will make very little difference. HSBC has already announced that it plans to move 1000 jobs to Paris.

Scrawler
June 28th, 2016, 10:09 PM
The role of "supra-national government" is grossly overstated. EU directives are agreed by the Council of Ministers and then incorporated into the law of member states. Every state gets to vote on these matters. Sometimes it goes the way you want and the minister comes home boasting of what they achieved. Sometimes it doesn't and they come home whining about the bureaucrats stopping them or imposing something on them. They politicians know the game. Many of their voters don't.

BTW, I'm afraid that unless your North American contact runs a major bank or industrial outfit, her moves to move to the UK will make very little difference. HSBC has already announced that it plans to move 1000 jobs to Paris.

As I said it does seem counter intuitive. I am not going to argue with them, I am just going to sit at the sidelines and be amused.

HughC
June 29th, 2016, 05:26 AM
What I found surprising is the number of young people, who one would have expected to benefit from easier travel and foreign education, who voted to leave.

Statistics seems to indicate this was not the case. (see here (http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2016/06/24/brexit-demographic-divide-eu-referendum-results/) ). Still I would think that's far from a definitive proof, more a "better than nothing" guide. The economics of it make no sense and this article (http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2016/06/24/brexit-demographic-divide-eu-referendum-results/) adds to the general consensus of a difficult time ahead.

Scrawler
June 29th, 2016, 07:04 AM
What I found surprising is the number of young people, who one would have expected to benefit from easier travel and foreign education, who voted to leave.

Statistics seems to indicate this was not the case. (see here (http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2016/06/24/brexit-demographic-divide-eu-referendum-results/) ). Still I would think that's far from a definitive proof, more a "better than nothing" guide. The economics of it make no sense and this article (http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2016/06/24/brexit-demographic-divide-eu-referendum-results/) adds to the general consensus of a difficult time ahead.
Yes , I know. It is strange, isn't it? If I was a younger person in Britain, I am pretty sure that my main concern would have been about the likely increased expense and inconvenience of travel.

MTurbo
July 4th, 2016, 07:23 AM
It Took 240 Years But Now Even the Brits Understand Independence Day.

myu
July 4th, 2016, 10:45 AM
I think the EU formation happened too quickly. The EEC was a good idea... and because it worked out after only a short period of time, the EU imperative got stronger support. There was a kind of "unbridled enthusiasm." People are too impatient. People forget how complicated other people are. Sovereignty is important and having sufficient influence on legislation within one's own nation. But in a community, there must be compromises as long as they are within reason.

As for Europe becoming a version of the United States, that would not happen for at least a century or more. There would need to be more homogeneity to the collective societies. While strong differences persist, it's not going to happen.

The UK is not going to reap a significant benefit from leaving the EU, based on all that I've read and learned at this point. The UK has significant business ties to Europe and will now face higher costs in dealing with the EU. What few arrangements the UK wants to have under its control with other countries versus established through the EU, such as sourcing steel, is not going to reap any benefit. The UK was devastated by the collapse of British steel under the push of cheap Chinese steel. But this had nothing to do with the EU.

Because of high technology, the global market is here to stay. You can't roll back time here, unless we lay to waste all that has been built and start again.

Ultimately I think David Cameron made a terrible mistake, both in running the referendum vote and in his inept negotiation skills with the EU. And look at what happened afterward... those key Brexit pushers pulled back on their promises after overstating what Britain has to pay to be part of the EU. It was all so stinking disingenuous, manipulating the masses to vote YES on leaving.

Oh, and claiming this is Britain's independence? It's just patently untrue to say this and only harping on baseless sensationalism.

MTurbo
July 5th, 2016, 05:30 AM
http://media.cagle.com/226/2016/06/29/181384_600.jpg

Scrawler
July 5th, 2016, 06:53 AM
I think the EU formation happened too quickly. The EEC was a good idea... and because it worked out after only a short period of time, the EU imperative got stronger support. There was a kind of "unbridled enthusiasm." People are too impatient. People forget how complicated other people are. Sovereignty is important and having sufficient influence on legislation within one's own nation. But in a community, there must be compromises as long as they are within reason.

As for Europe becoming a version of the United States, that would not happen for at least a century or more. There would need to be more homogeneity to the collective societies. While strong differences persist, it's not going to happen.

The UK is not going to reap a significant benefit from leaving the EU, based on all that I've read and learned at this point. The UK has significant business ties to Europe and will now face higher costs in dealing with the EU. What few arrangements the UK wants to have under its control with other countries versus established through the EU, such as sourcing steel, is not going to reap any benefit. The UK was devastated by the collapse of British steel under the push of cheap Chinese steel. But this had nothing to do with the EU.

Because of high technology, the global market is here to stay. You can't roll back time here, unless we lay to waste all that has been built and start again.

Ultimately I think David Cameron made a terrible mistake, both in running the referendum vote and in his inept negotiation skills with the EU. And look at what happened afterward... those key Brexit pushers pulled back on their promises after overstating what Britain has to pay to be part of the EU. It was all so stinking disingenuous, manipulating the masses to vote YES on leaving.

Oh, and claiming this is Britain's independence? It's just patently untrue to say this and only harping on baseless sensationalism.

During the formation of the US people from everywhere came in relatively small numbers and it was easier after a couple generations of trade, intermarriage and mixing to form a new society that was broadly homogeneous. Europe consists of many countries with different cultural attitudes and languages. For the same homogeneity to take place people in approximately equal numbers would need to move and intermarry to all of the countries. However all the countries are not equally attractive. So a majority will stay at home and smaller numbers will move. This causes chafing and reaction. For the EU to work as the architects envision it, and become a United States, they first need to take steps to make every society equally attractive to all people. I agree that the EEC idea was a good one and that if it had not been rushed to compete with the USA as a single power block, it had a good chance at succeeding.

Much of the Commonwealth (former British Empire) have had problems with the EU because other countries in the EU have blocked trade arrangements they would have liked to have made with Britain. There is now a movement among Commonwealth countries to rectify their trading situation with Britain. I personally will benefit by some of the ideas laid out in Brent Cameron's "The Case for Commonwealth Free Trade" because when it is enacted, I will be able to buy things from UK that I cannot now buy.

I also agree that David Cameron should not have made the referendum promise as a part of his bid for election. He understandably wanted a majority government and rolled the dice. My attitude has always been that if you can not afford to lose, you should stay out of the casino.

MTurbo
July 5th, 2016, 07:25 AM
http://heatst.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/13438829_1607439989269718_1997685090955318851_n.jp g?w=601&quality=80&strip=info

tmenyc
July 5th, 2016, 11:09 AM
A friend called yesterday Amexit Day

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk